A brave new definition of “free speech”
Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.
They shouldn’t be allowed to make that claim? And what do you (Oaks) think should be done to prevent them from being “allowed” to exercise their free speech on this point? Some sort of legal limitation on your critics’ rights to use their free speech to criticize you?
No joke or exaggeration, it sounds like that’s what he’s proposing:
But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
Am I misreading this?
Otherwise, what “greater protection” for the “religious actor” do you think he’s requesting? Any specific examples?
(In order to keep the question open to reasonable discussion with believers, let’s try to keep criticism even of the CoJCoL-dS itself civil and constructive on this thread.)